Court Of Appeals Denies Murderer’S Request Judges Agree Aeschliman’S Request For Discovery Material Was Too Broad

A Coeur d’Alene judge’s decision to deny a murderer’s bid for information to fight his sentence has been upheld by the Idaho Court of Appeals.

The three-member court on Thursday unanimously backed 1st District Judge James Judd’s August 1997 dismissal of Danny Ray Aeschliman’s application for “discovery” - an attempt to gather evidence that could help his continuing court battle.

Aeschliman, 46, was sentenced to at least 18 years and up to life in prison in 1994 after entering an Alford plea to first-degree murder by torture. He was charged with the August 1993 beating death of his wife, Mary Ann Aeschliman, at their Coeur d’Alene home.

By entering an Alford plea, Aeschliman acknowledged prosecutors had enough evidence to win a conviction, but did not admit guilt.

The Idaho Court of Appeals later upheld Aeschliman’s sentence. Aeschliman then asked that he be allowed to pursue discovery.

Judd dismissed the request because it did not specify what information was being sought. So Aeschliman appealed, arguing that his efforts to gather evidence should be unfettered. He alleged that denying him discovery violated his constitutional rights.

The Appeals Court disagreed.

Chief Judge Darrel Perry wrote for the court that limits must be set on attempts like Aeschliman’s “so that the prosecution will not be inundated with discovery requests from applicants who are either unaware of the proper methods and subject areas of discovery or are simply on fishing expeditions.”

Perry said indigent prison inmates have no disincentive to file such requests because “unbridled discovery costs the applicant nothing and sanctions for discovery abuses are, for the most part, impractical.”

Moreover, Aeschliman never specified which issues he wished to obtain discovery on and why they were pertinent to his case. The appellate court applauded Judd’s insistence that such a requirement be met.

“We encourage other courts to utilize the procedure adopted by the district court in the instant case,” Perry wrote.

An absence of facts also colored the court’s rejection of Aeschliman’s argument that his sentence would not have been so severe had his trial attorney not failed to investigate or get expert witnesses.

“Indeed, during oral argument, Aeschliman conceded the record’s hollowness regarding what facts would have been revealed by any expert assistance,” Perry wrote.

“Thus, we are asked to speculate that such investigation would have benefited Aeschliman; this we will not do.”